LEGAL APPROACH
Ensuring Legal Services

Username:   Password:    New User? Register Now!!!
 
www.consumerredressal.com
  Home >>  
  About Us >>  
  Judgments >>  
  Areas of Practice >>  
  Cause Lists >>  
  Bare Acts >>  
  News and Articles >>  
  Formats >>  
  Contact us >>  
  Blog >>  
  Disclaimer >>  
Special Leave Petition  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a))

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO………… OF 2011

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising out of

the final judgement and order dated 02.11.2011 passed by

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Writ Petition (C) No. 7188

Before the High

Court

Petitioner

Before this

Court

Petitioner

Arvind kumar Mishra

Gurhatta Hamam Path

Patna City, Bihar-800008

1. Union of India, Ministry

of Human Resource

Development

Shastri Bhawan

New Delhi - 110001

Through Its Secretary

2. University Grant

Commission

1, Bahadurshah

ZafarMarg

New Delhi - 110002

Through Secretary

Respondent No. 1

Respondent

No. 1

Respondent No. 2

Respondent

No. 2

3. Shri Lal Bahadur

Shastri Rashtriya-

Sanskrit Vidyapeeth

(Deemed University)

Qutub Institutional

Area New Delhi- 110

016 Through its Vice

Chancellor

4. Sh. B K Mohapatra

Registrar Shri Lal

Bahadur Shastri

Rashtriya-Sanskrit

Vidyapeeth, (Deemed

University) Qutub

Institutional Area

New Delhi - l l0016

Respondent No. 3

Respondent

No. 3

Respondent No. 4

Respondent

No. 4

All contesting respondents

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India

and his companion Justices of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

The Special Leave Petition of the petitioners above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The petitioners above-named respectfully submit the

petition seeking special leave to appeal against the final

judgment and order dated 02.11.2011, passed by High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

7188 of 2011, whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed

the said writ petition filed by the petitioner and has

allowed the respondent No. 4 to continue as Registrar of

Respondent No. 3 beyond a period of 5 years.

Question of Law:

The following question of law arises for considerations

by this Hon’ble Court:

Whether

considering the fact that as per Government of

India notifications and UGC rules, post of registrar

in respondent no. 3 is a term post and is subject to

renewal after completion of 5 years, which has been

made permanent by amending the original bye laws

of the respondent no.3?

Whether the court below was justified in holding

that the appointment of respondent no. 4 was valid

and legal and he has been allowed to continue as

registrar of respondent no. 3 till his superannuation,

i.e. 62 years?

the

Court

below

was

justified

in

not

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):

The petitioners state that no other petition seeking leave

to appeal has been filed by them against the impugned

judgment and order

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:

The annexures filed along with the Special Leave Petition

are true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed

part of the record of the case in the High Court against

whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this

petition.

GROUNDS:

Leave to Appeal is sought for on the following grounds:

A. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate

the fact that Respondent No. 3 has been constituted

furtherance

to

the

constitutional

mandate

of

development of culture and Sanskrit Language and it

is a duty casted upon the institution to discharge its

functions in accordance with the rules- and regulations

framed there under for regulating the appointments of

the faculties and also in conducting the affairs of the

Respondent No. 3 and violation of any of the provisions

of the Memorandum of Association and Bye Laws will

prejudice the interest of the institution and the ancient

language.

B. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the fact

that the provisions of amended Bye Laws governing

the appointment of Registrar (Respondent No. 4) in

Respondent No. 3 is in violation of the Notification dated

02.11.1988, by which the appointment already existing

in the respondent No. 3 has been allowed to continue

till his superannuation to facilitate the existing registrar

as permanent Registrar in the Respondent No. 3.

C. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the fact

that making post of the registrar as a permanent post

in the Respondent No. 3 is in violation of the notification

dated 02.11.1988 and the guidelines and notifications

of UGC, which clearly mandate that the post of registrar

is a tenure post in the Respondent No. 3 and making it

permanent has made the person absolute in power and

rights to act on his whims and fancies.

D.
Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the

fact that the Respondent No. 3 is governed by the Rules

and Regulations framed by the 1st and 2nd respondent

herein.

provides rules and regulations for the efficient conduct

of the affairs, governs the Respondent No. 3 and the

Respondent No. 3 is mandated to fully adhere to the

rules and regulations and the guidelines issued by the

1st and 2nd Respondent from time to time.

E. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the fact

that converting the post of registrar in the Respondent

No. 3, from tenure post to the permanent post, only

to accommodate the present registrar, is against

the rules laid down by the respondent No. 1 and

respondent no. 2 and continuation of respondent no.

4 as a permanent registrar in the Respondent No. 3 is

harming the interests of the Respondent No. 3 and the

language and it is also the violation of the rules and

The

memorandum

of

association,

which

regulations of the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3.

F.Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the

fact that the Respondent No. 3 being a deemed to be

University under Sec. 3 of the UGC Act and is bound

by the Act and the Rules of UGC. Vide letter dated 26th

May, 2005 the respondent No. 3 has observed that the

Respondent No. 3

permanent which is against the rules and notifications

laid by the UGC and Government of India.

G.
Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the

fact that the post of registrar in the Respondent No. 3

is a tenure post has been converted by the Respondent

No. 3 in the permanent post with ulterior motives to

benefit a single person who is harming interests of the

Respondent No. 3 and Sanskrit Language.

H. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the

fact that The Respondent No. 3 has not recruited any

Finance Officer etc., after 27.06.2005 and the Finance

officer power has been given to the present Registrar

and he is acting as Finance officer from 27.06.2005.

I. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the

fact that the post of the registrar in the Respondent

No. 3 is a tenure of five years has been converted by

the Respondent No. 3 in the permanent post only for

the present registrar is against the rules laid by the

Respondent No. 3 and the bye laws governing the

method of recruitment rules 2008.

is making the post of registrar as

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

No interim relief has been sought for in the petition.

MAIN PRAYER:

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to;

a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the final

judgment and order dated 02.11.2011, passed by

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 7188 of 2011, whereby the Hon’ble

High Court dismissed the said writ petition filed

by the petitioner and has allowed the respondent

No. 4 to continue as Registrar of Respondent No.

3 beyond a period of 5 years.

b) pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble

Court

facts and circumstances of the case and in the

interest of justice.

may graciously be pleased to pass in the

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

No interim relief has been sought for.

DRAWN ON:

FILED BY

DRAWN BY:

VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

PLACE: NEW DELHI

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

OF 2012

Ramanathan Shankara Subrahmania Sharma.

….…Petitioner

Versus

First Blue Home Finance Ltd

.......Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, S. Ramanathan, S/o, Late Shankara Iyer, aged about 66 years, residing

at SF3, Elegant Shine,

Bengaluru 560 050, India, presently at New Delhi, do herby solemnly affirm

and state as under :-

#12/72, 4th Cross, SBM Colony, BSK – I stage,

That I am Authorised Representative of the petitioner in the

abovecaptioned matter and am competent to swear the present

affidavit which has been drafted by counsel under my instructions.

That I have gone through a copy of the List of Dates from pages B

to ___ and I state that the contents thereof are true and correct to my

knowledge and belief.

That I have gone through a copy of the special leave petition from para

1 to ......... from pages ___ to ___ and I state that the contents thereof

are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

That I have gone through a copy of the interlocutory applications and I

state that the contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge.

Annexures P-1 to ____ attached are true and correct copies of their

respective originals.

DEPONENT

I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of my above

affidavit are true to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and

nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the ___ day of April, 2012.

DEPONENT



2008-2012 Legal Approach